In the recent case of Ben-Levi v. Brown, a Jewish inmate sued a prison for denying him the right to hold a weekly Torah-study session with other Jewish prisoners. A federal court ruled in favor of the prison on grounds that fly in the face of a long-accepted principle: namely, in the Supreme Court’s formulation, that “the federal courts have no business addressing” the question of whether a person has properly understood his own religion’s doctrines. Mitchell Rocklin and Howard Slugh write:

The court, applying the test now advocated by the Obama administration [in a case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, upcoming at the Supreme Court], made its own determination regarding the religious harm that Ben-Levi would suffer if denied the ability to study with other Jewish inmates. The court reached the absurd conclusion that it was actually protecting Ben-Levi’s religiosity by denying his request. According to the court, Ben-Levi had not suffered any harm because, in its view, Judaism prohibited individuals from studying together in the absence of ten men or a rabbi.

In other words, the court concluded that Ben-Levi did not deserve a religious exemption because he misunderstood his own religion. In doing so, the court acted as a religious tribunal rather than a secular court—and an incompetent one at that. No major denomination of Judaism prohibits the study in question. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case. Justice Alito wrote a dissent stating that he would have taken the case and reversed the decision. He criticized the lower courts for impermissibly holding that “a plaintiff’s own interpretation of his religion must yield to the government’s interpretation.”

This case offers a clear example of the danger inherent in courts’ second-guessing plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. The district court’s interpretation of Judaism has no basis in Jewish doctrine. . . . [But the] court’s specific misunderstanding—as baffling as it may be—is mostly beside the point. The court’s confusion highlights why judges should not be in the business of deciding theological questions. That might be the role of Saudi Arabian courts, but it is not the role of the American judiciary.

On Tuesday, a Hizballah drone attack injured three people in northern Israel. The next day, another attack, targeting an IDF base, injured eighteen people, six of them seriously, in Arab al-Amshe, also in the north. This second attack involved the simultaneous use of drones carrying explosives and guided antitank missiles. In both cases, the defensive systems that performed so successfully last weekend failed to stop the drones and missiles. Ron Ben-Yishai has a straightforward explanation as to why: the Lebanon-backed terrorist group is getting better at evading Israel defenses. He explains the three basis systems used to pilot these unmanned aircraft, and their practical effects:

These systems allow drones to act similarly to fighter jets, using “dead zones”—areas not visible to radar or other optical detection—to approach targets. They fly low initially, then ascend just before crashing and detonating on the target. The terrain of southern Lebanon is particularly conducive to such attacks.

But this requires skills that the terror group has honed over months of fighting against Israel. The latest attacks involved a large drone capable of carrying over 50 kg (110 lbs.) of explosives. The terrorists have likely analyzed Israel’s alert and interception systems, recognizing that shooting down their drones requires early detection to allow sufficient time for launching interceptors.

The IDF tries to detect any incoming drones on its radar, as it had done prior to the war. Despite Hizballah’s learning curve, the IDF’s technological edge offers an advantage. However, the military must recognize that any measure it takes is quickly observed and analyzed, and even the most effective defenses can be incomplete. The terrain near the Lebanon-Israel border continues to pose a challenge, necessitating technological solutions and significant financial investment.